I guess I need to start this post by saying I was horrified and shocked by Trumps election. I would never have voted for him.

However being more socially conservative then anyone else on this board (other than probably WWD) I can relate to the people who feel let down by mainstream politics. Seeing my politicians vote repeatedly against my views on homosexuality and abortion etc is frustrating bust I understand it reflects the society I'm in. However what is not understandable is feeling scared to share my opinions on those issues because of the backlash against me whenever I have done. Until politicians start to take the views of mainstream Christians/socially conservatives seriously and not just announce us all as pure evil I think we're going to continue to see this rejection of 'mainstream politics' and sadly that seems to involve a swing to the right.

All of that said I've seen a lot of my evangelical brethren from across the pond say they voted for Trump on a pro-life agenda. Personally I can't take a misogynistic, racist seriously on tackling pro-life; being pro-life isn't just about abortion/assisted suicide.

Interested in the history behind the novel? Find a list of english language Three Kingdom sources here.

Sun Fin wrote:However being more socially conservative then anyone else on this board (other than probably WWD) I can relate to the people who feel let down by mainstream politics. Seeing my politicians vote repeatedly against my views on homosexuality and abortion etc is frustrating bust I understand it reflects the society I'm in. However what is not understandable is feeling scared to share my opinions on those issues because of the backlash against me whenever I have done. Until politicians start to take the views of mainstream Christians/socially conservatives seriously and not just announce us all as pure evil I think we're going to continue to see this rejection of 'mainstream politics' and sadly that seems to involve a swing to the right.

All of that said I've seen a lot of my evangelical brethren from across the pond say they voted for Trump on a pro-life agenda. Personally I can't take a misogynistic, racist seriously on tackling pro-life; being pro-life isn't just about abortion/assisted suicide.

I’ve seen a lot of this—people being attacked for their views, especially on the conservative/socially conservative side—through Trump’s campaign and post election—and not just in concerns of faith. It bothers me because this shuts down a conservation the American left and right desperately needs to be having as our government grows more polarized and “news” sources becomemorebiased.

What sparked me to reply, though, is that it completely baffles me that so many evangelical Christians backed Donald Trump. I mean, in terms of polling and statistics it doesn’t—we knew this was happening—but in terms of my understanding of Christianity and the teachings attributed to Jesus it is mind blowing to me.

Clearly(?) the incentive at play, here, is that the Republican Party is on the side of pressing legislation opposed to the likes of abortion and gay marriage, but otherwise he stands contrary to almost any Christian value I can imagine. Am I missing something as an outsider looking in?

What sort of views do you feel you’re being attacked on, out of curiosity? If it happens to be sponsoring of national-level legislation in opposition to abortion or gay marriage that’s a very touchy subject for people because the consequence of such legislation is, respectively, stripping equal rights from citizens (setting aside any argument as to whether marriage belongs to religion or a specific religion, and that different religions have differing views of marriage, the government is involved and there are legal implications); passing legislation presumes to force women to make profound life-changing choices relative to their bodies (physically, financially, professionally); and in either runs afoul of the Constituion. These agenda bridge a divide between respecting a faith’s teachings as they apply to membership (also constitutionally protected), and impressing those tenants upon non-members in the general population.

Or on the other hand is it simply holding such personal beliefs, respectful of separating church and state, that you find leads to you being attacked? I can imagine that is certainly taking place when so many feel they are under attack and scared themselves, which seems a shame all around—these too are conversations representing a divide in our country wherein I think we should be striving to better understand differences in point of view.

Sun Fin wrote:I guess I need to start this post by saying I was horrified and shocked by Trumps election. I would never have voted for him.

However being more socially conservative then anyone else on this board (other than probably WWD) I can relate to the people who feel let down by mainstream politics. Seeing my politicians vote repeatedly against my views on homosexuality and abortion etc is frustrating bust I understand it reflects the society I'm in. However what is not understandable is feeling scared to share my opinions on those issues because of the backlash against me whenever I have done. Until politicians start to take the views of mainstream Christians/socially conservatives seriously and not just announce us all as pure evil I think we're going to continue to see this rejection of 'mainstream politics' and sadly that seems to involve a swing to the right.

All of that said I've seen a lot of my evangelical brethren from across the pond say they voted for Trump on a pro-life agenda. Personally I can't take a misogynistic, racist seriously on tackling pro-life; being pro-life isn't just about abortion/assisted suicide.

As far as I see it, and bear in mind that I may be painting with a broad brush here, but when it comes to US politics, the Republican party platform is generally deeply rooted in the mainstream Christian/social conservative demographic. Although I have to admit, I'd be very keen to see that particular vote breakdown over the past few election cycles.

So I would say, the swing to the right wasn't due to the religious right being tapped into by Trump (or at least I hope not ). Instead he tapped into the fear centers within the Republican base, such as immigration issues, isolationism, and trade protectionism; and singing a sweet melody to the Rust Belt. This boosted Republican voter turnout - which I read in one article would have seen him beat 2012 Obama as well - while Clinton, who very much played up to mainstream politics, and the thing with Sanders disenfranchising Democratic party voters, led to the end result.

As for taking the right's views seriously, I dunno, I'm a firm firm believer in separation of church and state under any and all circumstances, so I have always found myself at odds with the Republican party outright, regardless of anything else on their platform. Like James suggests, there is having your beliefs, and then there is implementing those beliefs on society as a whole through party agendas and so forth.

The lack of dialogue this post-election period is also concerning. Obama's tenure already served to polarize the two extremes immensely and cause confusion among moderates on both sides in the process, and this election has only widened that gap even further.

I do get why social conservatives (though they have plenty of members in Commons and the Lords) feel that if they say their feelings (like their church shouldn't do gay marriage, no to women priests, business shouldn't be forced to do pro-gay marriage message) then they get treated as worse then Satan. Bigots being used, abuse, treatment as evil. There a lot of issues where if you disagree with the liberal left (immigration, foreign policy, refugee crises) then out comes the abuse.

I think this partly a reflection on the political bigotry from all sides we now live in and tendency for abuse. Your own leader is not a true member of the party, one MP here has 25,000 anti-Semitic abuse sent against her for crime of crying at getting anti-Semitic abuse from her own side, constant death threats to MP's, anyone who disagrees from values is beyond the pale. BNP/Trump being beyond the pale argument is weakened when it feels like every major British PM in last 30 years is described by same people as evil or when UKIP are described as beyond the pale or when Brexit makes you racist, feels like most recent US presidential candidates and Presidents have also been describe as horrible people. Getting back to the grown up idea that disagreement does not=evil is a major attitude change that needs to happen before we see better times

“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”

James wrote:I’ve seen a lot of this—people being attacked for their views, especially on the conservative/socially conservative side—through Trump’s campaign and post election—and not just in concerns of faith. It bothers me because this shuts down a conservation the American left and right desperately needs to be having as our government grows more polarized and “news” sources becomemorebiased.

What sparked me to reply, though, is that it completely baffles me that so many evangelical Christians backed Donald Trump. I mean, in terms of polling and statistics it doesn’t—we knew this was happening—but in terms of my understanding of Christianity and the teachings attributed to Jesus it is mind blowing to me.

Clearly(?) the incentive at play, here, is that the Republican Party is on the side of pressing legislation opposed to the likes of abortion and gay marriage, but otherwise he stands contrary to almost any Christian value I can imagine. Am I missing something as an outsider looking in?

What sort of views do you feel you’re being attacked on, out of curiosity? If it happens to be sponsoring of national-level legislation in opposition to abortion or gay marriage that’s a very touchy subject for people because the consequence of such legislation is, respectively, stripping equal rights from citizens (setting aside any argument as to whether marriage belongs to religion or a specific religion, and that different religions have differing views of marriage, the government is involved and there are legal implications); passing legislation presumes to force women to make profound life-changing choices relative to their bodies (physically, financially, professionally); and in either runs afoul of the Constituion. These agenda bridge a divide between respecting a faith’s teachings as they apply to membership (also constitutionally protected), and impressing those tenants upon non-members in the general population.

Or on the other hand is it simply holding such personal beliefs, respectful of separating church and state, that you find leads to you being attacked? I can imagine that is certainly taking place when so many feel they are under attack and scared themselves, which seems a shame all around—these too are conversations representing a divide in our country wherein I think we should be striving to better understand differences in point of view.

Sorry I’ve taken so long to reply James. It’s been a busy week as I’m sure you could imagine. There is so much to unpack here.

This is a rather insightful article on whether the media’s claim that 75% of evangelicals voted for Trump is accurate. Whilst I think it build a case for there being an exaggeration it is certainly true that white evangelicals have a tendency to vote Republican.

In Britain the equivalent group (white evangelicals – which myself included) tend to feel in a quandary. In terms of economic issues Jesus’ teaching leads one to a left leaning position whilst socially I think we come down on the right. So that leaves the question of which is more important? Many this side of the pond vote Labour deciding the economic reasons are more important (perhaps a decision made easier as the Tory party haven’t really backed traditional Christian’s views in current times by passing gay marriage law for example). Whereas it seems to me that whilst US Christians might face the same question the stereotype example believes it has a very clear answer. That answer is abortion. Rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly) many Christians in the USA seem to have become one issue voters.

It’s that last paragraph I think James. I don’t agree with gay marriage legislation but I also believe in Romans 12 that tells me to submit to the authorities of the land as God has given them their power. I campaigned against it and I would again but I also respect the authority of the state to have that law in place. But I also expect people to respect my opinion to disagree with the law and with them.

It seems our right to an opinion and belief is under attack. Archbishop Welby wrote this article a week ago that by our government’s definition of an extremist that he is one. Universities over here have a policy about no platform for extremists, however the definition of who is extreme seems to be very flexible and can be used to describe anyone who the liberal NUS disagrees with.

Then when you see the plaudits this woman got be refusing to make a dress for Mrs Trump on political grounds compared to the way this Christian couple were treated for not being willing to make a pizza because of their religious convictions and you can understand why evangelical Americans feel victimised and like mainstream politics isn’t accepting of them or their views.

Over here an Irish bakery got prosecuted for making the same stand, people have been fired for wearing crosses or offering to pray for people. In a culture that is quick to take offense, tolerance has led to intolerance of anything that doesn’t fit the elite liberal left’s view point and those of us left on the outside feel like no-one cares about our rights and we’re not represented by anyone within politics. So I’m scared that Brexit and Trump aren’t flashes in the pan but a reaction to the rejection we feel. Unfortunately people like Trump and Farage aren’t going to help anyone and will just make the situation worse.

Interested in the history behind the novel? Find a list of english language Three Kingdom sources here.

I wasn't shocked to see Trump win. I felt that he just squeaked by. Although the electoral vote seemed like a large margin, historically it really wasn't. He also lost the popular vote.

I feel like both candidates were terrible and I could not bring myself to vote for either of them. Prior to the election, I predicted either a close race or a race in Trump's favor at various different points. It really depended on what the news looked like. Before the FBI announcement exonerated her, I thought Clinton was going to lose. After that announcement, I thought it was 50/50.

I don't think Trump won because of much merit in his campaign. Yes, he did do some things right and capitalized on anti-Establishment sentiment. But in my opinion, he just barely won. Furthermore, I feel that the reason he won was because his opponent is one of the worst and most reviled politicians in all of American history.

People have been quick to say that Russia is to blame for interference in the election and tarnishing Clinton's supposedly good name. I think that's bull. Clinton was historically the most unpopular first lady in modern history according to Gallup polls. She has been a polarizing figure for her entire career. The primaries damaged her a lot because she was cast (rightfully so) as beholden to donor interests like most politicians. The criminal investigations of her also cast doubt upon her judgment. I can't emphasize enough how stupid it is for the Democrats to have run a candidate who was under investigation from the FBI. The entire situation was without much precedent, and in a very bad way.

I can't fathom why people thought Clinton was a good candidate. There is a reason why she lost in 2008 despite having overwhelming support from Establishment figures then as well.

If the Democrats want to win in 2020 they need to revamp their entire strategy.

First of all, Democrats need to drop their support for gun control or at least compromise by setting different rules and regulations for different areas. Rural voters need guns for hunting or to shoot rattlesnakes (in California) just among other examples. Even if proposed gun control legislation would only bar access to the most dangerous guns or set up a bureaucracy for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the simple mention of gun control instantly alienates a large percentage of the country.

on that note, the Democrats need to pick their battles a lot better. Both Democrats and Republicans have avoided a lot of important substantive debates about the nature of government spending and income inequality. Instead, the two parties have been consumed with culture wars. It's time to focus again on important priorities instead of garbage.

Secondly, Democrats need to be the party of change and the working man, not the party of the status quo working at the behest of donor interests.

Thirdly, Democrats need to support democratic reform. This election needs to be a wake up call for electoral and campaign finance reform. Our democracy is broken. At the very least, winner takes all in a Presidential election needs to go. Superdelegates need to go. All Dem primaries need to be open to Independents if not everybody. If you want a strong candidate, you need somebody who appeals to the entire population and not just self-identified Democrats, especially in an era when more and more people identify as Independent. There needs to be stricter rules for limiting campaign contributions.

Finally, Clinton made a number of absolutely retarded and unforgivable PR blunders during the election. Asked about the enemy she is proud of, she said Republicans. Voila! That's ~1/3 of the population alienated. She also called all Trump voters "deploreables" and tried to smear Sanders supporters by alleging that they were sexist "Bernie Bros." It's one thing to target your opponent, but if you target their supporters you are making a disastrous long-term miscalculation. The Democratic party needs to avoid tactical errors in the future. During one town hall, Clinton also said, "I wanna put coal miners out of jobs." She could not have phrased her energy views in a worse way than that. Ultimately, she lost West Virginia "coal country" substantially despite the fact that Bill Clinton had carried that state when he ran as President. This was not inevitable at all, but she blundered her way into such disaster.

By the way, Sanders was not immune to gaffes of this sort. He once said something along the lines of, "White people don't know what it's like to be truly poor." I think he was pandering and trying to compensate for his weakness in appealing to African American voters, but his words were very poorly chosen there. The Democratic party needs to focus on attacking the Republican politicians, not the ordinary American voters who may support one candidate or another. And the Democratic party needs to cut it out with the stupid identity politics crap. Hillary Clinton is not immune to criticism because she is a woman, nor are voters blind to the concept of change on the surface without actual change. Clinton once said that being a woman made her the ultimate outsider and non-Establishment politician. What a crock of horse shit.

Jordan wrote:I wasn't shocked to see Trump win. I felt that he just squeaked by. Although the electoral vote seemed like a large margin, historically it really wasn't. He also lost the popular vote.

I feel like both candidates were terrible and I could not bring myself to vote for either of them. Prior to the election, I predicted either a close race or a race in Trump's favor at various different points. It really depended on what the news looked like. Before the FBI announcement exonerated her, I thought Clinton was going to lose. After that announcement, I thought it was 50/50.

I don't think Trump won because of much merit in his campaign. Yes, he did do some things right and capitalized on anti-Establishment sentiment. But in my opinion, he just barely won. Furthermore, I feel that the reason he won was because his opponent is one of the worst and most reviled politicians in all of American history.

Yes, yes and yes.

Like you, I thought Trump stood a better chance of winning than most of his critics were saying. Like you also, I couldn't bring myself to vote for either one. (I voted for Mike Maturen, the socially-conservative pro-union candidate. Jill Stein was close to me on a number of issues, but she ran a horrible, slipshod campaign in Minnesota, such that Ajamu Baraka got excluded from the ballot in favour of Howie Hawkins. Urgh.)

Also like you, I think Trump won because his opponent was incredibly weak. Hillary Clinton managed to push away many of the voters she needed the most, such that they stayed home or went over to the other side.

Jordan wrote:People have been quick to say that Russia is to blame for interference in the election and tarnishing Clinton's supposedly good name. I think that's bull. Clinton was historically the most unpopular first lady in modern history according to Gallup polls. She has been a polarizing figure for her entire career. The primaries damaged her a lot because she was cast (rightfully so) as beholden to donor interests like most politicians. The criminal investigations of her also cast doubt upon her judgment. I can't emphasize enough how stupid it is for the Democrats to have run a candidate who was under investigation from the FBI. The entire situation was without much precedent, and in a very bad way.

I can't fathom why people thought Clinton was a good candidate. There is a reason why she lost in 2008 despite having overwhelming support from Establishment figures then as well.

This, very much.

Jordan wrote:If the Democrats want to win in 2020 they need to revamp their entire strategy.

First of all, Democrats need to drop their support for gun control or at least compromise by setting different rules and regulations for different areas. Rural voters need guns for hunting or to shoot rattlesnakes (in California) just among other examples. Even if proposed gun control legislation would only bar access to the most dangerous guns or set up a bureaucracy for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the simple mention of gun control instantly alienates a large percentage of the country.

on that note, the Democrats need to pick their battles a lot better. Both Democrats and Republicans have avoided a lot of important substantive debates about the nature of government spending and income inequality. Instead, the two parties have been consumed with culture wars. It's time to focus again on important priorities instead of garbage.

Strangely, I think I agree with all of this.

My views on gun control have evolved massively over the past two years. I actually think there's a very good case for a regional, piecemeal approach to the issue. Rural people feel - reasonably - like they are getting scapegoated for a problem (violent crime, aggravated assault, murders with guns) that happens primarily in cities. Democrats respond to this problem in a tone-deaf way that perpetrates the rural-urban divide.

Jordan wrote:Secondly, Democrats need to be the party of change and the working man, not the party of the status quo working at the behest of donor interests.

Ehh... yes to the 'working man' part, but not necessarily to the 'change' part, depending on what is meant.

Democratic 'change', like Republican 'change', is all-too-often change for the worse. The 'change' that the Democratic Party has to represent, if it wants to be politically viable in the future, is a reversion to the policies of the New Deal and the Vital Centre, which assured the working class of a solid, proportionally-expanding piece of the pie. They can't keep on being the party of the neoliberal 'experts' who pull long-faced pieties about redistribution whilst at the same time shutting the unions and the farmers out of all the conversations on account of the fact that they don't have the relevant degrees.

Jordan wrote:Finally, Clinton made a number of absolutely retarded and unforgivable PR blunders during the election. Asked about the enemy she is proud of, she said Republicans. Voila! That's ~1/3 of the population alienated. She also called all Trump voters "deploreables" and tried to smear Sanders supporters by alleging that they were sexist "Bernie Bros." It's one thing to target your opponent, but if you target their supporters you are making a disastrous long-term miscalculation. The Democratic party needs to avoid tactical errors in the future. During one town hall, Clinton also said, "I wanna put coal miners out of jobs." She could not have phrased her energy views in a worse way than that. Ultimately, she lost West Virginia "coal country" substantially despite the fact that Bill Clinton had carried that state when he ran as President. This was not inevitable at all, but she blundered her way into such disaster.

In all seriousness, though, I agree with you. Clinton didn't even bother campaigning in Michigan - where cities have been suffering from shortages of drinkable water; where recent immigrants are struggling to gain a foothold economically; the state which epitomises Rust Belt malaise and white working-class depression. That's as dumb as dumb gets, politically speaking. And she paid for it, big time. It's hard to say whether just putting in an appearance there would have saved her campaign, but the fact that she didn't even do that speaks volumes.

As a 'Bernie Bro' myself, I was alienated from voting for Clinton precisely because her Pantsuit National supporters were so insufferably obnoxious and bent on castigating me as a sexist and a crypto-racist.

Jordan wrote:By the way, Sanders was not immune to gaffes of this sort. He once said something along the lines of, "White people don't know what it's like to be truly poor." I think he was pandering and trying to compensate for his weakness in appealing to African American voters, but his words were very poorly chosen there.

Yeah, I remember being put in an awkward position of having to defend that statement in particular. It wasn't easy, because it's so deeply at odds with his own lived experience, and with the concerns of his constituents. I get what he was trying to say, though - black people in America do suffer from discrimination along non-economic dimensions, and that's not a reality which should be swept under the rug. But the way he said it made it sound like he was dumping on poor white people, which sucked for him politically.

Jordan wrote:The Democratic party needs to focus on attacking the Republican politicians, not the ordinary American voters who may support one candidate or another. And the Democratic party needs to cut it out with the stupid identity politics crap. Hillary Clinton is not immune to criticism because she is a woman, nor are voters blind to the concept of change on the surface without actual change. Clinton once said that being a woman made her the ultimate outsider and non-Establishment politician. What a crock of horse shit.

Okay, Jordan, now you're just sucking up to me.

Honestly, though, I think you've got most of it right on the money here.

Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.

Like you, I thought Trump stood a better chance of winning than most of his critics were saying. Like you also, I couldn't bring myself to vote for either one. (I voted for Mike Maturen, the socially-conservative pro-union candidate. Jill Stein was close to me on a number of issues, but she ran a horrible, slipshod campaign in Minnesota, such that Ajamu Baraka got excluded from the ballot in favour of Howie Hawkins. Urgh.)

I'm in agreement with both of you on this subject. However, I do question the soundness of that voting philosophy. Maybe voting philosophy isn't the best term, either. While its very common and understandable to view the unenviable two-party system and its resulting candidates as merely a choice between the lesser of two evils, if one is demonstrably larger than the other why not campaign for the lesser? Is it purely philosophical?

Also like you, I think Trump won because his opponent was incredibly weak. Hillary Clinton managed to push away many of the voters she needed the most, such that they stayed home or went over to the other side.

Jordan wrote:I can't fathom why people thought Clinton was a good candidate. There is a reason why she lost in 2008 despite having overwhelming support from Establishment figures then as well.

This, very much.

I don't disagree with either of you that Trump took the victory largely due to the weakness of his opponent (combined with the wave Trump rode on as well). I agree many other candidates could have pulled out a victory much easier, and that she came with much baggage. But even in this abysmal race, was she really that bad of a candidate? Not saying the answer is no, but even the weaker candidate took the national popular vote and in most of the large urban cities.

WWD wrote:

Jordan wrote:If the Democrats want to win in 2020 they need to revamp their entire strategy.

First of all, Democrats need to drop their support for gun control or at least compromise by setting different rules and regulations for different areas. Rural voters need guns for hunting or to shoot rattlesnakes (in California) just among other examples. Even if proposed gun control legislation would only bar access to the most dangerous guns or set up a bureaucracy for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the simple mention of gun control instantly alienates a large percentage of the country.

on that note, the Democrats need to pick their battles a lot better. Both Democrats and Republicans have avoided a lot of important substantive debates about the nature of government spending and income inequality. Instead, the two parties have been consumed with culture wars. It's time to focus again on important priorities instead of garbage.

Strangely, I think I agree with all of this.

My views on gun control have evolved massively over the past two years. I actually think there's a very good case for a regional, piecemeal approach to the issue. Rural people feel - reasonably - like they are getting scapegoated for a problem (violent crime, aggravated assault, murders with guns) that happens primarily in cities. Democrats respond to this problem in a tone-deaf way that perpetrates the rural-urban divide.

I'm with you, and maybe both of you, on this interesting rural-urban divide which is occurring. As an individual from a rural area, I can definitely say that rural areas appear to believe the Democratic approach/solutions to gun-control are idiotic or invasive based on their own personal ways of life. It's surely off-putting and has to be addressed. I'm not entirely what is to be done, however. The rural voters won't stand for restrictions, but the only areas which urban voters can control are being pulled from them as well. Definitely need a different strategy, but I'm not sure abandoning gun control is a morally or practically sound move.

In all seriousness, though, I agree with you. Clinton didn't even bother campaigning in Michigan - where cities have been suffering from shortages of drinkable water; where recent immigrants are struggling to gain a foothold economically; the state which epitomises Rust Belt malaise and white working-class depression. That's as dumb as dumb gets, politically speaking. And she paid for it, big time. It's hard to say whether just putting in an appearance there would have saved her campaign, but the fact that she didn't even do that speaks volumes.

At times it appeared, to me, that the DNC thought that if they could pull off the vote without these individuals they could simply force them to come along.

Jordan wrote:The Democratic party needs to focus on attacking the Republican politicians, not the ordinary American voters who may support one candidate or another. And the Democratic party needs to cut it out with the stupid identity politics crap. Hillary Clinton is not immune to criticism because she is a woman, nor are voters blind to the concept of change on the surface without actual change. Clinton once said that being a woman made her the ultimate outsider and non-Establishment politician. What a crock of horse shit.

Okay, Jordan, now you're just sucking up to me.

Honestly, though, I think you've got most of it right on the money here.

I'm not sure I disagree with either of you, but I do think this election cycle exposed alot of the views people do in fact hold concerning identity politics and gender. Certainly no individual is or should be immune to criticism due to their gender.

Sun Fin wrote:Over here an Irish bakery got prosecuted for making the same stand,

They were prosecuted because they are not a Christian bakery. If they want to open a Christian bakery by all means they should but if they want to open a general business to the general public then deny a non-hateful, harmless cake in a country with a hostile history when it comes to divisions then people are going to pick up on it. They are a business, not a denomination that have been shown to pick and choose which Christian ethos they value in the baking of their cakes then yes their "stand" upon serving the general public was discriminatory. Sure, they have the right to refuse any orders but the Equality Commission also has the right to step in when they shrug at a lot of Christian teachings but not another.

The Christian owner didn't even have to make the cake, others in the premises could have done it. In fact, others were willing to do it and accepted the order. The owner was the one who called back days later to deny the order despite people in his place being happy and willing to make the cake. He wasn't being forced to make anything, the same way people shouldn't be forced to take their crosses off in work. But he denied other people within his workplace the right to make a cake that hurt nobody that he didn't agree with.

If becoming enlightened or an intellectual means I must become arrogant and coldly cynical about the world around me then I'd gladly remain a fool for the rest of my life!!